Ncaa Lowers Minimum Score For Act

October 10, 1991|By Ed Sherman.

De Paul`s Brandon Cole, who twice fell one point short on his ACT test in an attempt to gain eligibility as a freshman, now appears to have been a victim of bad timing. If Athletic Director Bill Bradshaw has his way, he will rectify the situation.

Wednesday, the NCAA Council lowered the minimum score requirement on the ACT test from 18 to 17 beginning in the fall of 1992 with the incoming freshman class. The NCAA acted on a recommendation from the American College Testing Service, whose new research said a 17 corresponds more accurately with a 700 on the SAT test.

Currently, in order to be eligible as a freshman under Proposition 48, a student-athlete needs to have a 2.0 grade-point average and either an 18 on the ACT or a 700 on the SAT. If the athlete fails to meet the test minimum, he has to sit out his freshman year and can`t receive financial aid from the school. He also loses a year of eligibility, leaving him only three seasons to play provided he makes grades as a sophomore.

Prior to his entrance at De Paul last fall, Cole twice scored a 17 on his ACT, which at the time wasn`t good enough. As a result, the highly regarded recruit from Bloom High School was forced to sit on the sidelines for the 1990-1991 season and had to receive loans to attend school.

If Cole had entered school next year, it would have been a different story. Conversely, any recruits sitting on a 17 on the ACT now have reason to celebrate because they will be eligible next year.

``It`s got to be tremendously frustrating for Brandon and his family,``

Bradshaw said. ``He had a year of his life taken away. Clearly, some adjustments have to be made.``

Bradshaw said he will look into trying to restore a year of eligibility for Cole and others who were in his situation, and make amends for those athletes who had to take out loans.

``I`d be interested in that,`` said Cole, who is eligible this year. ``I think we suffered enough by having to pay our own way and losing that year. We should be granted that extra year to play ball.``

The NCAA`s Jim Marchiony said the Council, the NCAA`s top decision-making body consisting of university presidents, athletic administrators and faculty, did consider making the new regulation retroactive, but decided against it. There was the problems of where to draw the line, and possibly pushing schools over the scholarship limit.

``It was cleaner and more equitable to do it this way,`` Marchiony said.

For the last two years, college-bound students have been taking a test that`s been revised by the ACT. Before the revision, the NCAA used a 15 on the ACT to correspond with a 700 on the SAT.

As a result of the new test, the ACT recommended to the NCAA that an 18 be used. The latest research by the ACT, however, indicated a 17 is more comparable to the 700 on the SAT. The ACT passed the information to the NCAA, and it acted accordingly.

``I want to emphasize that this in no way is a weakening of academic standards,`` said NCAA President Judy Sweet. ``Rather, this is an adjustment. When they changed the revised ACT test, they had anticipated 18 would be the concordant score.``

Officials at ACT, based in Iowa City, were unavailable for comment.

Ursula Walsh, the NCAA`s director of research, said she didn`t think many student-athletes would have been affected by the change. Anything above a 17.5 on the ACT is rounded off to 18.

``I doubt if there were very many people who were right there and didn`t get an 18,`` Walsh said. ``I hope there aren`t many who were really, really close.``

Walsh said the NCAA doesn`t have figures on how many student-athletes scored a 17 on the ACT during the last two years, but her assistant, Todd Petr, said, ``We might find out tomorrow (when the phones start ringing at the NCAA).``

Of college-bound students taking the tests, the 700 on the SAT or the 17 on the ACT fall between the 15th and 17th percentile, according to Walsh. Legislation at the next NCAA convention could make the requirements even tougher; a proposal raising the minimum grade-point average to 2.5, with a sliding scale on the tests if a student falls below. If passed, it wouldn`t go into effect until 1995.

That won`t matter to Cole, who failed to get in under the old rule. The NCAA`s Marchiony knows there might be talks of lawsuits by those athletes who are affected by the change, although the threat didn`t deter the Council.

Bradshaw, though, hoped the change could be done from within the NCAA.

``No matter what the percentage of students affected is, in all fairness something should be done,`` Bradshaw said.